In our recent blog “Whatever happened to Grenfell Tower – Reprised” we drew attention to the seeming inability of senior TMO management to tell the truth to our community.
We are now able to produce more evidence of how Peter Maddison, the TMO’s Director of Assests and Regeneration, feels it is appropriate to treat residents with contempt and disdain. Unfortunately for Maddison he did not count on us making an official complaint about his cavalier and grossly disrespectful behaviour and we are happy to publish the damning result of investigations into our grievance by the TMO’s Policy and Improvement Manager, Janet Seward, below.

The saga began when the Grenfell Action Group wanted to find out more about the funding gap between what the TMO have in terms of revenue set against the cost of maintaining their existing properties. We had become aware through the TMO Board minutes from September 2012 that:

 “A recent survey of the condition of the stock, the Rand report, indicated investment was required in the region of £105 million by 2017. The current allocation was £7.5 million per year for the next four years for capital works, so there was a potential shortfall between the funding needed and the funding available of £67 million by 2017.”

We wrote to Mr Maddison requesting a copy of the aforementioned Rand Study so that we could look at it’s contents and be in a better position to make informed judgements about  the TMO, and their ability to protect the future of our homes and community in the years ahead.

He replied on the 17th September and took the very bizarre decision to state that he considered that “the stock condition survey contains commercially sensitive information and therefore is not in the public domain” and refused to provide us with a full copy of the Rand Study – this despite the fact that much of the information contained in the Rand Study was already available in the public domain and could be accessed openly via the TMO website.

We wrote back to Maddison on the same day asking him where we could appeal his decision to prevent access, in response to what we considered to be an entirely legitimate request. Maddison, as is his habit, failed to reply to this query in a timely manner,  and he also failed to respond to subsequent emails on 25th September and the 4th October.
After we had contacted the TMO’s Head of Governance, Maddison finally sent us a copy of the Rand Study but he had painstakingly removed every numerical reference within it, which  had the effect of rendering the document completely unintelligible and irrelevant. Please see the ‘redacted’ report attached: – Rand Report-Redacted

Maddison could not have stuck two fingers up at us any more effectively, and we believe he knew this well.

We consider this to be an insulting and petulant action from a senior TMO manager which left us with no other choice but to refer our concerns up the TMO management chain in the hope that Maddison might be ordered to become more resident friendly, or at least to conduct himself in a professional manner in future.

He would do well to read the letter we received as a result of our complaint and the damning conclusions it reached about his unprofessional behaviour and judgements:

Complaints against Mr Maddison – Stage 2 of the Complaint Procedure‏

Dear *********
As promised, I have, as a senior manager, undertaken an investigation of how your complaints have been handled…. My investigation focused on whether or not we complied with our service standards in dealing with your concerns.  I would add that the circumstances regarding your complaint are slightly unusual in that you are a resident of Lancaster West and that office would normally deal with your complaint.  However, as the TMO took on  your complaint, I consider that we should have dealt with it according to TMO procedures.

1.    Our response to your complaint
Your complaint is upheld.  I would advise you that complaints that have not been resolved to the complainant’s satisfaction are discussed (anonymously) at twice-yearly staff groups and steps are taken to ensure that a similar situation does not happen again.  In addition Joanne Burke, the Complaints Manager and I discuss issues as they occur and I will discuss your concerns with her when she returns from leave next week.

2.    We do not adhere to our service standards
Your complaint is upheld.  I would advise you that staff are regularly given both enquiry/complaint-handling information and Freedom of Information advice is available from the Company Secretary and the Head of Governance.

3.    Your request regarding the Rand Survey was not dealt with appropriately or within the required timescales
Your complaint is upheld.  I would expect the action taken in 1 & 2 above will ensure that this situation does not happen again.

4.    The version of the Rand Survey received was made meaningless by the redactions
The Company Secretary and Head of Govenance has written to you separately on this matter.

In conclusion, I would say that the way in which your enquiry was dealt with, falls below the standard expected at the TMO.  We will be taking the steps that I have outlined above to ensure that this does not happen again.  Please accept my sincere apologies and do contact me if you require any further information.

Janet Seward

KCTMO Policy & Improvement Manager

We have since written back to the Ms Seward to enquire what specific disciplinary action they intend to take against Mr Maddison to ensure that he improves his performance and learns that he needs to treat residents with respect.

In the meantime, we think that Maddison should spend a little time on the naughty step and try, in future, to behave with the professionalism that his position as a Senior Manager warrants.


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.